Casebook 7.5.7 sit A.

[Nevadaref]

Originally Posted by ilyazhito

That is also perplexing. The violation should render the ball dead, however, a specific exception to the rules makes fouls on or by an airborne shooter personal fouls, and thus renders a foul by an airborne shooter a player-control foul, even though his team no longer controls the ball by any definition.

The violation penalty then comes into effect, because the violation made the ball dead, not the foul. This is the reason why a player who was fouled in the act of shooting, scores, but has the basket taken away by basket interference on the part of a teammate, shoots free throws. In this case, the violation penalty awards A the points they would have earned on the field goal.

The only thing which is perplexing is your convoluted and confusing post, which also contains several factual errors of NFHS rules.

Here are the clear facts:
The play involves an airborne shooter. Rule 6-7-9 tells us that the ball does not become dead until the airborne shooter returns to the floor, despite a whistle for a goaltending violation.
Therefore, the ball remains live following the goaltending. It only becomes dead when airborne shooter A1 commits a charging foul prior to returning to the floor as this is a player control foul per 4-19-6 and 6-7-4 states that a PC makes the ball dead.

Now we simply penalize the actions in order of occurrence. Award points for the goaltending, and then award Team B a throw-in with the privilege of running the endline due to the awarded goal.

The principle which controls this situation is that the ball does not become dead until the airborne shooter either returns to the floor or commits a PC foul.

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

Here are the clear facts: The play involves an airborne shooter. Rule 6-7-9 tells us that the ball does not become dead until the airborne shooter returns to the floor, despite a whistle for a goaltending violation. Therefore, the ball remains live following the goaltending. It only becomes dead when airborne shooter A1 commits a charging foul prior to returning to the floor as this is a player control foul per 4-19-6 and 6-7-4 states that a PC makes the ball dead. Now we simply penalize the actions in order of occurrence. Award points for the goaltending, and then award Team B a throw-in with the privilege of running the endline due to the awarded goal. The principle which controls this situation is that the ball does not become dead until the airborne shooter either returns to the floor or commits a PC foul.

Thanks for he great explanation Nevadaref.

But how can we have two dead balls on the same play?

6-7-9, the goaltending, makes the ball dead first. Check its pulse, it's dead.

Then 6-7-4, the player control foul, give the ball the coup de grâce and makes it really dead for good.

What's the rule citation for the "zombie" ball between the goaltend and the player control foul?

Why does one act make the ball "deader" than the other act?

Dead is dead? Like a door nail? Right?

[youngump]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

Thanks for he great explanation Nevadaref.

But how can we have two dead balls on the same play?

6-7-9, the goaltending, makes the ball dead first. Check its pulse, it's dead.

Then 6-7-4, the player control foul, give the ball the coup de grâce and makes it really dead for good.

What's the rule citation for the "zombie" ball between the goaltend and the player control foul?

Why does one act make the ball "deader" than the other act?

Dead is dead? Like a door nail? Right?

If the ball is not dead after the first goal tend, what happens if somebody else also goal tends it or commits basket interference?

[bob jenkins]

Originally Posted by youngump

if the ball is not dead after the first goal tend, what happens if somebody else also goal tends it or commits basket interference?

2-3

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by youngump

If the ball is not dead after the first goal tend, what happens if somebody else also goal tends it or commits basket interference?

Like opponents, one from each team?

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

What's the rule citation for the "zombie" ball between the goaltend and the player control foul? Why does one act make the ball "deader" than the other act? Dead is dead? Like a door nail? Right?

Since the goaltend made the ball dead, wouldn't the player control foul have to be intentional or flagrant to not ignore, and thus technical?

[bob jenkins]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

Since the goaltend made the ball dead, wouldn't the player control foul have to be intentional or flagrant to not ignore, and thus technical?

I agree the goal tending causes the ball to become dead (exception 4 applies to swinging the elbows and to leaving the court, not to other violations, although the rule does include the words "such as" so you could extend it if you want).

Still a foul on or by an airborne shooter while the ball is dead is still a personal foul (4-19-1) and a PC foul (4-19-6).

So, enforce the violation and the foul.

[crosscountry55]

Originally Posted by bob jenkins

Still a foul on or by an airborne shooter while the ball is dead is still a personal foul (4-19-1) and a PC foul (4-19-6).

So, enforce the violation and the foul.

Good point. Normally we think of such a foul as occurring after an apparently successful try, such as on a tomahawk dunk with an LGP defender under the basket (still no RA in NFHS). But I suppose the ball could just as well have become dead from the violation rather than the successful try.

So I guess my editorial suggestion above may not be necessary after all.

Always listen to Bob.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by crosscountry55

Normally we think of such a foul as occurring after an apparently successful try, such as on a tomahawk dunk with an LGP defender under the basket ... But I suppose the ball could just as well have become dead from the violation rather than the successful try.

crosscountry55: Great example. Thanks.

Successful dunk causes the ball to become instantly dead, dead as a doornail, no pulse, but we still penalize the player control foul even though it may not be intentional nor flagrant.

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by bob jenkins

... not to other violations, although the rule does include the words "such as" so you could extend it if you want ...

I probably agree with bob jenkins in theory (intent, purpose), but I'm unable to find the language "such as" in any applicable rule. Please cite.

[bob jenkins]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

I probably agree with bob jenkins in theory (intent, purpose), but I'm unable to find the language "such as" in any applicable rule. Please cite.

Sorry -- I misremembered "as" in 6-7-Excp d as "such as" when I was typing. Should have brought my books from the library to the computer.

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by crosscountry55

Rule 6 - Section 7 Dead Ball Art. 9 . . . A violation, as in 9-2 through 13, occurs (see exception d below). Exception: The ball does not become dead until the try or tap for field goal ends, or until the airborne shooter returns to the floor, when: d. Article 9 as in 9-3-3, 9-11, 9-12 or 9-13-1, occurs by an opponent.

Originally Posted by bob jenkins

Sorry -- I misremembered "as" in 6-7-Excp d as "such as" when I was typing. Should have brought my books from the library to the computer.

Although I haven't given it much of a deep dive study, I kind of like crosscountry55's idea.

Unfortunately, it's still just an idea and not yet applicable to the kerfuffle ruling in the current casebook play.

Thus, I stand by my questions regarding this casebook ruling:

Originally Posted by BillyMac

What's the rule citation for the "zombie" ball between the goaltend and the player control foul? Why does one act make the ball "deader" than the other act?

While there are rule exceptions to a ball not becoming dead right away, thus delaying death, I'm not aware of any rule exception that resurrects a doornail dead ball and making it to become alive again.



Also need a rule exception for this (I don't believe that there's currently an exception in the rulebook for this):

Originally Posted by BillyMac

Successful dunk causes the ball to become instantly dead, dead as a doornail, no pulse, but we still penalize the player control foul even though it may not be intentional nor flagrant.

[bob jenkins]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

What's the rule citation for the "zombie" ball between the goaltend and the player control foul?

None. And it's not needed. You are making this more complicated than it needs to be. (I'm shocked! Shocked! to find out that this is true!)

The goaltending made the ball dead. You can still have a PC foul after the ball is dead. Enforce both, in the order they happened. That's the point of the case play.

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by bob jenkins

The goaltending made the ball dead. You can still have a PC foul after the ball is dead. Enforce both, in the order they happened. That's the point of the case play.

Yes but (an official's famous, or infamous, last words) aren't we supposed to ignore contact during a dead ball unless it's intentional or flagrant?

If the caseplay is the only citation (explanation, rationale) for this ruling, I can live with that, but would prefer to also have a rule language citation as well.

[BillyMac]

We have a winner.

Originally Posted by BillyMac

7.5.7 SITUATION A: B1 goaltends on airborne shooter A1’s try. A1 fouls B1 in returning to the floor. RULING: Since no free throws result from the player-control foul, B’s throw-in is from anywhere along the end line because of the awarded goal for B1’s goaltending violation. (9-12 Penalty 1)

4-19-1-Note: Contact after the ball has become dead is incidental unless it is ruled intentional or flagrant or is committed by or on an airborne shooter.

Why did it take so long for us to come up with this citation?

Also takes care of crosscountry55's dunk and charge situation.

Now we can all sleep peacefully tonight with visions of turkey legs and pumpkin pies in our heads knowing that all in the basketball officiating universe is copacetic.